Trump's removal of U.S. attorneys began as a broad February 2025 turnover, but the dispute now centers on who may lead offices temporarily when Senate-confirmed posts are vacant. Courts in Nevada and New Jersey rejected Justice Department workarounds, while a Washington lawsuit may decide whether Trump can fire a prosecutor appointed by federal judges.
U.S. attorneys are the chief federal prosecutors for their districts. The immediate path out of these disputes is a presidential nomination followed by Senate confirmation, but that process remains incomplete in the affected offices.
Table of Contents
- How the dispute developed
- Why the 120-day limit matters
- What the Nevada and New Jersey rulings change
- Why the Washington case is different
- What comes next
How the dispute developed
In February 2025, trump requested the resignation of New Mexico U.S. Attorney Alexander Uballez during a transition affecting more than 20 U.S. attorneys, according to the Justice Department. That turnover was separate from the later legal fights over temporary leadership. The appointment dispute emerged as temporary officials reached statutory deadlines without Senate-confirmed successors. courts then had to examine whether DOJ could preserve its preferred leaders by changing their titles or relying on other vacancy provisions.
On December 1, 2025, the Third Circuit affirmed Alina Habba's disqualification from federal prosecutions in New Jersey. The court rejected the administration's theory that federal vacancy mechanisms allowed her to continue serving as acting U.S. attorney, according to the Third Circuit's published decision. On August 17, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reached a similar result involving Sigal Chattah in Nevada. It held that DOJ could not make her acting U.S. attorney by installing her as first assistant after the vacancy had already occurred, the Associated Press reported.
Why the 120-day limit matters
Under 28 U.S.C. § 546, the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney. That appointment lasts no more than 120 days. After the deadline, the district court may appoint a prosecutor to serve until a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed successor qualifies.
The current statutory text published by Cornell Legal Information Institute gives judges that backup appointment power. The Nevada and new Jersey disputes concern attempts to keep administration-selected prosecutors in charge after ordinary temporary authority became legally vulnerable. They do not establish that every interim appointment is invalid. The distinction matters because the statute creates several stages of authority. A presidential nominee, an attorney general's temporary appointee, and a court-appointed prosecutor may perform similar work while holding office through different legal routes.
What the Nevada and New Jersey rulings change
The rulings disqualified the challenged officials from exercising authority as acting U.S. attorneys in the affected prosecutions. They reinforce the 120-day limit and restrict DOJ's ability to avoid it through later personnel changes. They do not automatically erase every action taken by those offices.
In Nevada, the Ninth Circuit upheld Chattah's disqualification but dismissed the defendants' attempt to obtain dismissal of their indictments at that appellate stage. For defendants, that means a successful challenge to an official's authority may produce a leadership correction without ending the prosecution. Any request for dismissal still depends on the case, the procedural stage, and the relief a court is willing to grant. People involved in an affected federal case should distinguish between three questions:.
- Was the official lawfully serving?
- Did that official personally authorize or participate in the challenged action?
- What remedy, if any, remains available at the present stage of the case?
Why the Washington case is different
On July 15, 2026, judges in the Western District of Washington appointed and swore in Roger Rogoff as U.S. attorney. Trump fired him less than an hour later, according to CBS News. That sequence raises a question not resolved by the Nevada and New Jersey decisions: whether a president may remove a U.S.
attorney appointed by a district court under § 546(d). Those earlier cases addressed unlawful temporary service, not presidential removal of a judicial appointee. Rogoff sued Trump, DOJ, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on July 21. He sought preliminary relief restoring him to office, and the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse docket showed the case remained pending as of its August 9 update. Until a court reaches the merits, the Washington dispute should not be described as a settled rule either for presidential removal power or judicial control over the office.
What comes next
The cleanest legal off-ramp is nomination and Senate confirmation. Nevada's White House replacement choice, George Kelesis, must complete that process before becoming a confirmed U.S. attorney. DOJ's August 17 listing still identified Chattah in Nevada and Neil Floyd in the Western District of Washington with markers indicating non-confirmed leadership.
Readers tracking these offices should watch for a formal nomination, Senate action, revised DOJ leadership listings, and a merits ruling in Rogoff's lawsuit. Anyone evaluating a claim that these disputes invalidated a prosecution should check the actual court order and docket. The Nevada decision shows why: disqualifying an acting U.S. attorney did not automatically dismiss the challenged indictments.